12-23-11, 03:54 PM #621
12-25-11, 10:54 AM #622
this garbage? Why does he think he can just shrug it off? It has his name in huge letters at the top of it.
Edit: Actually he has given his answer, which is to say it's not important, he wasn't involved for 10 years, but I don't see why anyone would find that satisfactory.
12-25-11, 11:34 PM #623
12-26-11, 08:04 AM #624
Ron Paul did not write the articles, disavowed them, personally doesn't believe in race - they were actually written 2 decades ago by someone else.
And, besides the point - he still personally apologized, again.
Now, this is the interesting thing. Ron Paul is accused of being a chicken hawk by the right, but is the only one to have volunteered and fought in a war and gets the most support from the troupes. Ron Pual is accused of being racist yet has clearly stated he does not believe in race, and will repeal the drug laws (which are used to unfairly target black Americans) and he gets the most support from African Americans.
I think the person who wrote those racist remarks was really pissed off at the way America was, and still is, degenerating and fount it intellectually easy to pick on a vulnerable segment of society. One thing I would agree with is the sentiment that welfare breeds welfare. Having grown up on welfare, $40 a week, I know it does.
Last edited by Michael; 12-26-11 at 08:17 AM.
12-26-11, 09:01 AM #625
Two, 20 years ago maybe a long time for a 20 year old. But Ron Paul is 76 years old. So they were published when he was in his 50's. Political ideology is normally set by the fifth decade of life.
Yes Ron Paul has disowned the racist documents. But he has not disavowed the support from racist groups (e.g. Neo Nazi's).
I agree with Ron Paul on his stance on drugs and the solution to every social ill is not a law. The issue of welfare is complex and there is no simple solution. But I really don't think welfare is one of the critical problems faced by the nation today. We need investment, better education and some serious financial reforms and most importantly better educated more informed voters and meaningful election and ethics reform in Washington.
12-26-11, 01:01 PM #626
Is Ron Paul conspiracy-minded? During Christmas dinner, we were discussing the conspiracy theory about the gold at Fort Knox. Is this complete nonsense?
Originally Posted by The Esotericist
One conspiracy theory says that no one has actually seen the gold since the 1930s. But in a letter to Paul in September, the Treasury Inspector General said he had "personally observed the gold reserves located in each of the deep storage compartments."
As a postscript to the story, CNBC asked for a tour of Fort Knox to film the gold, since our only footage of Fort Knox is from 1974. An official at the Mint told us that not he was not aware that any member of Congress had toured the facility since that year. Fort Knox is "a closed facility," the official said.
And so the conspiracy theory continues...
Ron Paul REQUEST AUDIT FOR FORT KNOX
Fort Knox, U.S. Gold Bullion Depository, Pt. 1
Fort Knox, U.S. Gold Bullion Depository, Pt. 2
Fort Knox, U.S. Gold Bullion Depository, Pt. 3
12-26-11, 02:04 PM #627
. . . .g-e-e-e-s-s-s-h-h-h!!!!
12-26-11, 06:08 PM #628
This is like saying...
If a Democrat works with a Republican to get liberal laws pass. They should break that alliance because the Republican is against woman's choice (racist?).. You get as much support as you can for YOUR IDEALS. You don't give a shit about what THEIR ideal is because you are working towards your goals, not theirs.
It doesn't matter why the racist supports you. Does a racist have a right to vote on things other race than? Or does him being a racist immediately means that he has no other concerns except race?
So just because someone is a racist they don't want a good economy? They don't care about anything?
Using labels to discredit someone is pretty idiotic.
12-26-11, 06:20 PM #629
Believe it or not, that is the fact of the matter. What remains is that Paul has not disavowed the support of Neo Nazi groups that fervently support him. Individuals in evaluating the suitability of Ron Paul as POTUS will evaluate the facts and make their decisions.
12-26-11, 06:42 PM #630
To me the fact that people even think about this is stupid. When Obama and that reverend came up. I was thinking 'why does this matter'. All that matters is the person you're voting for and what views they hold. Seems more like sensationalism, and media making a controversy out of every damn thing. Oh well..
Oh and how much money did he make off of racism vs actual gold/stock advise. What percentage of material was 'racist', to put things into perspective. Because it would be a far cry to say that people subscribed to his newsletters to read 1 racist line if 99% of those newsletters were actual monetary/investment advice, in which case one has to question the notion that 'he made money off of racism' (which is what you are suggesting).
And on a personal note:
A civil libertarian can't be a racist, IMO. I don't think anyone else in the Republican party has defended liberty more than Ron Paul. Others were essentially in favor of religious profiling of Muslims.
And supposing he IS a racist. A racist who will protect my civil liberties, freedoms, rights is way better than a non-racist who takes away my civil liberties, rights, and freedoms (Obama, Bush, etc...).. Because this racist simply has a bad opinion of me but he isn't imposing or taking away my rights. The so-called non-racists like Bush/Obama are in fact against my very person as they affect my freedom they are taking my rights away. To me they are far more 'racist' and dangerous than a civil libertarian racist. But I'm sure the emotional ties with the racist history of this country will not allow many people to see 'past the labels'.
One only holds a opinion against me. The other is actually taking action against me. I'd prefer the 'opinion-holder' over someone who takes actions against me, anytime, anywhere.
Last edited by 786; 12-26-11 at 10:38 PM.
12-26-11, 08:11 PM #631
12-26-11, 09:26 PM #632
12-26-11, 10:38 PM #633
12-26-11, 10:45 PM #634
Getting rid of a Federal EPA doesn't mean there can't be a 'state EPA' if the state chooses. In fact in Seattle restaurants have to use those biodegradable/composite plates and stuff. I don't think the Federal Gov told them to make this law.
Also not having an FAA doesn't mean that Airlines and Airports can't come together and form a system. They all have a vested interest in the aviation process to run as smoothly as possible. The idea that only Federal government can do is pretty much bullshit. Other options- State or Private- are always there that can do those things.
And personally my personal freedoms, civil liberties, and rights are far more important to me than the airplanes running. Anyone who attacks me as a person is far more dangerous than someone who attacks infrastructure. I'm pretty sure you care more about having a right to a just trial and not being imprisoned indefinitely without trial more than you care about getting on a plane. Because if you don't even have the right to justice then there is no guarantee you would even have the opportunity of boarding a plane. Everything else you do is dependent on civil liberties and freedom.
12-26-11, 10:49 PM #635
12-26-11, 10:50 PM #636
12-26-11, 10:59 PM #637
Seeing as how 786 substantially altered his message:
What I said was, it's irrelevant.
What happens in other places is the central government proclaims some minimum standard, and the state level authorities institute the neccessary bylaws to make it happen.
12-26-11, 11:12 PM #638
More like property rights were never enforced environmentally, and the whole awareness and movement of climate change is rather recent, and directed primarily towards the fed gov (where the money is). So nah, we've not tried it yet
There are private 'standards' created as well.
And how saying States can try to deal with the environment themselves (the purpose of EPA) and giving an example (in Seattle) is substantially 'changing' my message is beyond me.
In fact I don't know why we're even talking about this since my initial comments were about racism and civil liberties. Seems to me that someone changed the topic on me
Last edited by 786; 12-26-11 at 11:22 PM.
12-26-11, 11:22 PM #639
You do know that climate change isn't the only environmental problem around today right? There are other things, like air quality standards.
Also, climate change is not a new idea, it was first suggested in the 1890's, and the fundamental physics that implied its existence were already several decades old by that point.
12-26-11, 11:30 PM #640
Also not having an FAA doesn't mean that Airlines and Airports can't come together and form a system.
They all have a vested interest in the aviation process to run as smoothly as possible.
The idea that only Federal government can do is pretty much bullshit.
And personally my personal freedoms, civil liberties, and rights are far more important to me than the airplanes running. Anyone who attacks me as a person is far more dangerous than someone who attacks infrastructure.
By wynn in forum Computer Science & CultureLast Post: 08-05-10, 01:55 PMReplies: 28
By Tiassa in forum PoliticsLast Post: 01-13-08, 10:34 PMReplies: 120
By ashura in forum PoliticsLast Post: 12-17-07, 11:45 AMReplies: 0
By Fraggle Rocker in forum PoliticsLast Post: 12-01-07, 05:41 AMReplies: 64